Shooting discussion devolves

[ryacko]

WHILE ("A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state" = true)
LET "Armedcivilians" = true

By which I mean it's been a long time since the 2nd amendment as actually written has been relevant. Do I support blanket bans? Nope. But I support a free discussion of the subject without one side being able to hide behind a constitutional amendment that has quite clearly expired by its own language.

The British attempted to disarm the militia, leading to the shot heard round the world, leading to the Revolutionary War.

Although it does beg the question of whether or not unilateral succession is allowed, by regional authorities and their militia.

[White Haven]

As usual, you miss the point entirely. To clarify still further, I was making the argument that the wording of the second amendment to the US constitution is structured such that 'While A, B.' Since A, the need for a well-regulated militia, hasn't been terribly relevant to US national defense for quite a long time, B, the right of the people to bear arms, is no longer an automatic assumption. My point is emphatically and explicitly not that mass confiscation should result, as there is no ', else C' tailed onto the end of things to define what happens when A is no longer true.

[Lonestar]

Doesn't this argument kind of assume ALL citizens will rise up in a righteous fight against the government, though?

Because it seems to ignore the fact that in any remotely realistic (ie. "not Red Dawn") scenario, the LOYALIST faction will also be armed thanks to 2nd amendment magic...and may or may not be ready to commit violence on the rebels with the guns that are supposedly there to keep the government in check.

Not all rebellions are justified by a righteous fight against opression, either. My own country used to have the right to revolt outright guaranteed as a freedom for the nobility, and it led to nothing but problems.

I tell you what.

If the Occupy movement was open-carrying like the Tea Baggers were, I bet the NYPD and others would have been a lot less willing to engage in some good ole police brutality.

Occupy Northern Virgina(VA is a open carry state) never faced any problems with the police in Arlington, despite the potential security threat they posed to the many, many DoD and Contractor facilities in the city. ONV had many people open-carrying.

Across the river in DC, both Occupy DC and Occupy The District faced severe harrassment and questionable conduct from both District and NPS cops.

Obviously correlation isn't causation, but something to think about.

[Mr Bean]

As usual, you miss the point entirely. To clarify still further, I was making the argument that the wording of the second amendment to the US constitution is structured such that 'While A, B.' Since A, the need for a well-regulated militia, hasn't been terribly relevant to US national defense for quite a long time, B, the right of the people to bear arms, is no longer an automatic assumption. My point is emphatically and explicitly not that mass confiscation should result, as there is no ', else C' tailed onto the end of things to define what happens when A is no longer true.

What about intent considering that at the time of the writing being in the militia meant "all adult age males?" As at the time of writing everyone who did not count (IE non-white or female) had the right to bear arms as everyone of adult age was in the militia of what ever area they lived in. Does the fact that universal membership in the militia was a fact at the time have any bearing on your position?

[weemadando]

I tell you what.

If the Occupy movement was open-carrying like the Tea Baggers were, I bet the NYPD and others would have been a lot less willing to engage in some good ole police brutality.

Occupy Northern Virgina(VA is a open carry state) never faced any problems with the police in Arlington, despite the potential security threat they posed to the many, many DoD and Contractor facilities in the city. ONV had many people open-carrying.

Across the river in DC, both Occupy DC and Occupy The District faced severe harrassment and questionable conduct from both District and NPS cops.

Obviously correlation isn't causation, but something to think about.

That's hilarious. Because all of those Occupy sites were of totally equal profile.

Maybe Arlington police actually had good leadership and no violent idiots on the front line?

Maybe NY and DC faced more serious police actions because there was WAY MORE POLITICAL PRESSURE to be rid of them?

If they had been open carrying, do you think that they should have opened fire on police following a lawful order to move them?

Do you think that had Occupy armed themselves the police wouldn't have just rolled in with even more overwhelming force?

Do you honestly think that the way Tea Partiers and Occupy members were treated by the media, politicians & police should in any way be seen as comparable?

Seriously, it's like you're trying to set up an introduction to a bat shit Clancy novel.

[Beowulf]

As usual, you miss the point entirely. To clarify still further, I was making the argument that the wording of the second amendment to the US constitution is structured such that 'While A, B.' Since A, the need for a well-regulated militia, hasn't been terribly relevant to US national defense for quite a long time, B, the right of the people to bear arms, is no longer an automatic assumption. My point is emphatically and explicitly not that mass confiscation should result, as there is no ', else C' tailed onto the end of things to define what happens when A is no longer true.

Why do you assume that the second amendment is worded in the form of "While A, B", instead of "Because A, B"? The various draft forms of the 2nd Amendment don't indicate that A is meant to be a condition for the use of B, but rather to explain why B exists.

[Lonestar]

That's hilarious. Because all of those Occupy sites were of totally equal profile.

Maybe Arlington police actually had good leadership and no violent idiots on the front line?

Maybe NY and DC faced more serious police actions because there was WAY MORE POLITICAL PRESSURE to be rid of them?

If they had been open carrying, do you think that they should have opened fire on police following a lawful order to move them?

Do you think that had Occupy armed themselves the police wouldn't have just rolled in with even more overwhelming force?

Do you honestly think that the way Tea Partiers and Occupy members were treated by the media, politicians & police should in any way be seen as comparable?

Seriously, it's like you're trying to set up an introduction to a bat shit Clancy novel.

So you think the Police would be just as quick to misbehave if there's a crowd of people with some known to be armed, then in areas where it's essentially impossible for the average joe to legally carry?

Interesting.

By the way, the implication that the Arlington PD(home of the Pentagon, DARPA, various contractor and government facilities) wouldn't be under immense political pressure to do something about them is pretty fucking stupid.

[White Haven]

As usual, you miss the point entirely. To clarify still further, I was making the argument that the wording of the second amendment to the US constitution is structured such that 'While A, B.' Since A, the need for a well-regulated militia, hasn't been terribly relevant to US national defense for quite a long time, B, the right of the people to bear arms, is no longer an automatic assumption. My point is emphatically and explicitly not that mass confiscation should result, as there is no ', else C' tailed onto the end of things to define what happens when A is no longer true.

Why do you assume that the second amendment is worded in the form of "While A, B", instead of "Because A, B"? The various draft forms of the 2nd Amendment don't indicate that A is meant to be a condition for the use of B, but rather to explain why B exists.

The same issue applies with that wording, however. While, because, if, FOR ALL X, whatever you want. A is the grounds by which B is justified, so if A is no longer valid, B no longer follows automatically. Does it still follow in some form? Maybe. That's for the legislature to decide with relevant firearms laws. I'm not a gun owner, I'm not against civilian ownership of firearms. I don't have a horse in this race, I'm looking at the 2nd amendment from a fairly disinterested perspective.

[weemadando]

That's hilarious. Because all of those Occupy sites were of totally equal profile.

Maybe Arlington police actually had good leadership and no violent idiots on the front line?

Maybe NY and DC faced more serious police actions because there was WAY MORE POLITICAL PRESSURE to be rid of them?

If they had been open carrying, do you think that they should have opened fire on police following a lawful order to move them?

Do you think that had Occupy armed themselves the police wouldn't have just rolled in with even more overwhelming force?

Do you honestly think that the way Tea Partiers and Occupy members were treated by the media, politicians & police should in any way be seen as comparable?

Seriously, it's like you're trying to set up an introduction to a bat shit Clancy novel.

So you think the Police would be just as quick to misbehave if there's a crowd of people with some known to be armed, then in areas where it's essentially impossible for the average joe to legally carry?

There were cases of police "misbehaviour", but more often it was dumb or pointless, yet [probably] legal orders from above being followed. If Occupy had been armed then the response would likely have had even more overwhelming force to clear.

And why do you assume that police misbehaviour is tied to lack of firearms ownership? Why isn't it just as likely that the police would just shoot anyone and then say "well, he was reaching for his personal weapon, too bad so sad"?

Do you really have that intense a distrust of your police and govt that you believe that you need to be armed to protect yourself from them at all times?

Interesting.

By the way, the implication that the Arlington PD(home of the Pentagon, DARPA, various contractor and government facilities) wouldn't be under immense political pressure to do something about them is pretty fucking stupid.

Occupy NYC and other large sites were daily visuals on international news. I wasn't even aware that there was an Occupy Arlington. They may have still had pressure, but it's orders of magnitude different.

[PeZook]

I tell you what.

If the Occupy movement was open-carrying like the Tea Baggers were, I bet the NYPD and others would have been a lot less willing to engage in some good ole police brutality.

Occupy Northern Virgina(VA is a open carry state) never faced any problems with the police in Arlington, despite the potential security threat they posed to the many, many DoD and Contractor facilities in the city. ONV had many people open-carrying.

Across the river in DC, both Occupy DC and Occupy The District faced severe harrassment and questionable conduct from both District and NPS cops.

Obviously correlation isn't causation, but something to think about.

So? My point was that parts of an armed populace may just as well (actually, some certainly will ; There were plenty of British loyalists in the colonies...) support an opressive government AGAINST undesirable troublemakers, or overthrow a legal government brownshirt style. Or did you miss my example of Poland, which had the right to revolt outright guaranteed by law? And how it never worked the way it was supposed to, because nobles would go "Waaah waaah reform is injustice! WE USE OUR RIGHT AND REBEL!!!"

Pro-gun people are always awfully quick to say guns are just tools...which, surprise surprise, they actually are, and can be used in a number of ways depending on what the tool-used wants - but the prevailing narrative is always "Citizenry with arms will keep the gubmint in check!"

Unless they vote for the fascist laws themselves, then the same armed citizenry will brandish their FREEDOM causing guns at the latinos and blacks who try to vote.

[LaCroix]

I tell you what.

If the Occupy movement was open-carrying like the Tea Baggers were, I bet the NYPD and others would have been a lot less willing to engage in some good ole police brutality.

Occupy Northern Virgina(VA is a open carry state) never faced any problems with the police in Arlington, despite the potential security threat they posed to the many, many DoD and Contractor facilities in the city. ONV had many people open-carrying.

Across the river in DC, both Occupy DC and Occupy The District faced severe harrassment and questionable conduct from both District and NPS cops.

Obviously correlation isn't causation, but something to think about.

By that rationale, people in Europe (where there is no open carry, at all, only some concealed in rare cases) would be beat up on a daily basis at police road-checks.

[Aaron MkII]

Does Europe suffer from widespread systemic police corruption?

[Thanas]

Some nations do, like Italy and Greece. Also some eastern countries like Poland used to suffer from it, but I do not know if it is still prevalent over there. But Italy and Greece, yeah definitely. Maybe even more than the US.

[CaptHawkeye]

I generally think police corruption in the US is substantially different in cities vs. rural areas. Since rural police tend to be watched by the State Troopers. City police in the US get away with a lot though. Their is a reason New Yorkers refer to the NYPD as "The World's Biggest Gang".

Though to be fair, that's because the NYPD is known for being exceptionally ruthless in stopping crime. A substantial improvement from when they used to participate in it. All anecdotal I know, but it's a fairly typical attitude here.

[Lord Falcon]

I say attack the source of the problem directly. Repeal the 2nd Amendment entirely. My fellow Americans and I are too immature to be playing with guns.

[Formless]

Congratulations for making immature sweeping claims about people you have never met. I'm sure you shouldn't be playing with fire, either, you precious snowflake you.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Lord Falcon is as mature as someone who shouts "MOLON LABE" as their only contribution to this debate, and should probably be forced to live in a town full of these people.

[CaptHawkeye]

I think he would do himself a service just by reading at least a few pages back on the the thread and realizing he needs to say more than that.

[Aaron MkII]

I say attack the source of the problem directly. Repeal the 2nd Amendment entirely. My fellow Americans and I are too immature to be playing with guns.

Your an idiot. Go back and read the thread, pay attention to the posts that actually offer solutions, like licensing, safety courses and safe storage. There has also been a bunch of us promoting UHC and mental heath care funding.

[Agent Fisher]

I say attack the source of the problem directly. Repeal the 2nd Amendment entirely. My fellow Americans and I are too immature to be playing with guns.

Please, don't lump myself, Lonestar, a number of other posters, and millions upon millions of responsible gun owners and users with yourself. I find it offensive. Like Aaron and others have said, go back and read the last few pages and see the points raised about stricter controls on those with mental disorders possessing firearms and increased availability of resources for mental health.

[Lord Falcon]

I've never owned a gun. I don't see the reason. They are weapons, just that. The 2nd Amendment was specifically made to allow us to overthrow a tyrannical government. But in those days, they didn't have heavy machine guns that could kill dozens or hundreds within minutes. I personally don't want to shoot any living creature, ever. And I am willing to make sacrifices for the greater good. If it means less massacres of children, I will gladly say no one should own a gun. There are some countries that prohibit citizens owning guns and they work out just fine.

[Max]

I've never owned a gun. I don't see the reason. They are weapons, just that. The 2nd Amendment was specifically made to allow us to overthrow a tyrannical government. But in those days, they didn't have heavy machine guns that could kill dozens or hundreds within minutes. I personally don't want to shoot any living creature, ever. And I am willing to make sacrifices for the greater good. If it means less massacres of children, I will gladly say no one should own a gun. There are some countries that prohibit citizens owning guns and they work out just fine.

I'd argue that, in your position, that you aren't really "sacrificing" anything. Unless I'm missing something. You already eschew guns, so you're not sacrificing anything as much as reinforcing your position.

Anyway, I don't own a gun. Each member of my family does, however. While I don't think across-the-board banning is something that would work, I do think that there needs to be more steps taken to make sure that weapons aren't as easily acquired, and maybe limit their production. I know people (here and in the media) keep pointing at mental health or video games, but unless you have a way of detecting when someone is going to snap and go on a mass-shooting spree a la Minority Report, then perhaps we should deal with things that are more tangible. Like the number of guns in circulation. Licensing and following up with storage inspection. Prohibiting certain types of guns/magazine/clip sizes. Etc. I feel like these have all already been mentioned.

[Agent Fisher]

I've never owned a gun. I don't see the reason. They are weapons, just that. The 2nd Amendment was specifically made to allow us to overthrow a tyrannical government. But in those days, they didn't have heavy machine guns that could kill dozens or hundreds within minutes. I personally don't want to shoot any living creature, ever. And I am willing to make sacrifices for the greater good. If it means less massacres of children, I will gladly say no one should own a gun. There are some countries that prohibit citizens owning guns and they work out just fine.

You already don't use or own a firearm. So, I don't really see the sacrifice for you.

EDIT:
And I know some will consider it a 'slippery slope' argument, but if you're willing to sacrifice one freedom for the 'greater good', what's next? Banning cars on public roads and forcing people to use public transit because of vehicle accidents? Banning alcohol due to people drinking too much and harming themselves or getting behind the wheel of a vehicle?

And I'm not asking this cause I want to be rhetorical, I really want to know, how much would you personally, Lord Falcon, be willing to 'sacrifice' for the 'greater good'. Cause, see, myself? I always feel uneasy about any attempt to take away a freedom.

[Kneecap64]

And while we talk about this, guess what? Another shooting.

http://www.wjactv.com/news/news/sources ... -co/nTcf5/

It's sadly seems to be becoming a just about everyday occurrence now.

[Stark]

Cause, see, myself? I always feel uneasy about any attempt to take away a freedom.

Aren't you similarly uneasy about people dying for your 'freedom'. Its always other people, of course, who suffer. Convenient, really.